No refund for families who have paid water charges

Jack Killian

Suryavarman wrote: »

There's nothing brave about not paying your way in life.



People aren't being asked to pay twice for water. They're being asked to pay once through water charges even though the amount they'll pay doesn't even fully cover the cost of water. People are basically being asked to half pay for water.

Rubbish. They already got the LPT - where do you think that came from ? The magic money tree ?

BoatMad

Jack Killian wrote: »

Rubbish. They already got the LPT - where do you think that came from ? The magic money tree ?

more healy Ray-isms

" they" didnt get anything , you'd payed yourself to have more tax revenue so it could in time generate more public services , facilities , help the disadvantage, provide education and all the myriad of things taxes pay for

" They " didnt get anything, there is no "they ", theres just " us" all of "us"

the reality is taxes increase until you pay for all the services you demand. to do otherwise is what happened in 2008.

oscarBravo

Of all the arguments against water bills, the whole "paying twice" is such a ridiculous one I can't believe anyone advances it with a straight face.

If water is paid for through billing, of course it's not still being paid for through taxation. What, you think that Irish Water staff are getting two paycheques? You think that every repair is carried out twice? You think the electricity bills to run treatment plants are being double-paid?

It's a self-evidently stupid argument.

Suryavarman

BoatMad wrote: »

reducing debt actually reduces economic activity , there is no particular monetary advantage is reducing the "capital", once we can service the interest in a low interest rate environment, it would deb better to use the capital elsewhere

paying down debt removes government expediture from the economy, not a goo thing at present , Governments budgets bear no relation to housewives ones

Reinhart and Rogoff found that increased debt to GDP ratios result in lower growth. Admittedly people have found methodological flaws in that study. Debt to GDP doesn't inhibit growth as much as the authors found but the central point still stands. Higher debt to GDP ratios result in lower growth.

Paying down debt does not remove expenditure from the economy. It reallocates it. Instead of paying interest to foreign creditors the Government can now spend it in Ireland.

3% or so is not rapid, its a fragile recovery , it needs to be cemented in. major changes in fiscal policy could cause shocks that cause it to

Real GDP increased by 6% last year and is projected to increase by 4% next year. I don't think maintaining water charges constitutes a major change in fiscal policy. In fact it's the opposite. Nor would immediately balancing the budget. Unless the multiplier is 4 or more then the economy would continue to grow if we balanced the budget tomorrow.

dude, if tax revenues are increasing , then the fiscal space is increasing, even adding back lost revenue from IW, would have little impact. ( IW is only generating about 10% of its funding at present from charges anyway )

all that happens is the rate of fiscal rate growth is slowed a little by the financial impact of IW. but its not reduced

You clearly do not know what the fiscal space is. If you eliminate a source of revenue then the fiscal space increases at a slower rate thereby making the fiscal space smaller than it otherwise would be.

your mixing up current and capital, interest and principle .Governments have in reality no need to pay down debt, they just need to be able to " service " it. remember they create money in a flat currency

I'm doing nothing of the sort. You're just trying to show off what you learned in your introduction to macroeconomics class and you aren't doing a very good job at it.

The absolute size of ones debt is of little concern, ( the USAs is mammoth ), the markets value Irish euro bonds, by evaluating the debt to GDP ratio as does the Eurozone. AT present with a growing GDP , rising tax revenues , we are capable of accelerating that reduction of the principle , if we wanted to , which we dont .

Hence we are not piling on debt at present , with or without iW charges

I know that the absolute size is of little concern. Hence why I used a relative measure.

If we were to reduce the debt level at a faster rate we would have more flexibility in the next recession with regards fiscal policy. We would be able to borrow cheaper and we would be able to borrow a greater amount. We would also have more flexibility in current budgets instead of allocating over 10% of the budget to interest payments.

Suryavarman

Jack Killian wrote: »

Rubbish. They already got the LPT - where do you think that came from ? The magic money tree ?

LPT doesn't pay for water though. That goes towards funding local authorities. The local authorities are no longer in charge of water so the LPT is definitely not going towards the provision of water.

BoatMad

Paying down debt does not remove expenditure from the economy. It reallocates it. Instead of paying interest to foreign creditors the Government can now spend it in Ireland.

huh, its a fiat currency , the Eurozone can create as much as it likes within reason and stability. we do not in effect borrow Euros from foreign creditors .

you are confusing that with the gold standard

governemnts in essence pay interest to in effect ( and this is a gross simplification ) to ensure their is " value" in their fiat currency. in other words , the interest paid acts as a brake on fiat currencies simply creating too much money for free.

You clearly do not know what the fiscal space is. If you eliminate a source of revenue then the fiscal space increases at a slower rate thereby making the fiscal space smaller than it otherwise would be.

You have answered my point, if you grow from 2 to three and reduce 3 to 2.75, you have still grown the fiscal space to 2.75, it has not reduced . what a fiscal space "would have been , is somewhat an issue in conjecture anyway, errors in growth projections alone are enough to swallow the 10% of IW charges currently being collected

If we were to reduce the debt level at a faster rate we would have more flexibility in the next recession with regards fiscal policy. We would be able to borrow cheaper and we would be able to borrow a greater amount. We would also have more flexibility in current budgets instead of allocating over 10% of the budget to interest payments.

where this our own free floating currency , i would agree with you , however fiscal policy is now virtually completely controlled by the fiscal stability compact, as is credit supply and money supply by the Eurozone

The interest on loans made by the CBI/ECB accuses back to the state anyway. remember its a fiat currency. Our money supply is entirely controlled by both the compact and ECB /Eurozone rules . increasing taxa allows us to spend more domestically but money supply is out of our control ( as we found in 2008)

loans made by states outside the eurozone are real money , but most of these are paid off

Water John

It is getting very confusing. Who collects and gets the revenue from commercial connections at this point?
These varied systems are operated by different companies in each LA. Some are long term meter reading and billing contracts.

BoatMad

Water John wrote: »

It is getting very confusing. Who collects and gets the revenue from commercial connections at this point?
These varied systems are operated by different companies in each LA. Some are long term meter reading and billing contracts.

all commercial water rates are now paid to IW.

the breaking of any commercial contract can be done, the costs have to be evaluated and some could be prohibitive

Water John

Of course the other way of looking at that is, that most LA's had already a billing system in place that could easily have been extended to domestic metering.
And, none of them had to get in specialist software companies. Amazingly, they were able to use, off the shelf packages, which a good few private water schemes use too.

BoatMad

Water John wrote: »

Of course the other way of looking at that is, that most LA's had already a billing system in place that could easily have been extended to domestic metering.
And, none of them had to get in specialist software companies. Amazingly, they were able to use, off the shelf packages, which a good few private water schemes use too.

the attempt to rehabilitate LAs is amazing, there was widespread accusations of inefficiency and poor management for decades

to suggest that an entity like Dublin city council could have added water meeting reading to its list, is a joke. remember SUSIE

returning water to 24 seperate entities is just madness and much madness as IW.

Water John

Not what I'm looking at there, Boat. I'm saying, standing 4 years ago, these systems were in place at LA level.
Not sure how you throw around the phrase 'widespread accusations' about LA's.
Not my experience, generally excellent engineers and staff. Had to have a standard as they were always accountable at the monthly County Council meeting. Very transparent government.

BoatMad

Had to have a standard as they were always accountable at the monthly County Council meeting.

neither the staff not a county manger is " accountable " to county councillors in fact. he participates in County council meetings thats about it in reality

I supplied IT to county councils, theres no way they could have taken on widespread water meter reading and billing, the IR issues alone would have sunk it.

Water John

Tom Collins on Claire Byrne. Great governm't fella for heading up things.
Has no credibility as an 'independent' head of a water consumer body.

Geuze

Suryavarman wrote: »

LPT doesn't pay for water though. That goes towards funding local authorities. The local authorities are no longer in charge of water so the LPT is definitely not going towards the provision of water.

In a sense, it does.

All LPT and all motor tax is paid into the LGF, Local Govt Fund.

The LGF makes grants to local councils.

So all your LPT and motor tax goes to local councils, yes.

In the past some of the grants were used by councils to run water services.

Now councils get less grants, but the LGF pays a subvention to IW, to help pay for water services.

So when you hear that water is still partly paid for by taxation, this is what is meant - the LGF make a 439m subvention to IW.

The IW charges are not enough to cover the costs of all 1,000+ water plants.


http://www.environ.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/local_government_fund_accounts_2014_-_english.pdf

Godge

Water John wrote: »

Tom Collins on Claire Byrne. Great governm't fella for heading up things.
Has no credibility as an 'independent' head of a water consumer body.

Explain?

I could equally say that Water John has no credibility talking about water. If I did, you would ask me to back that up. So back up what you say about Tom Collins.

weldoninhio

Suryavarman wrote: »

LPT doesn't pay for water though. That goes towards funding local authorities. The local authorities are no longer in charge of water so the LPT is definitely not going towards the provision of water.

A pipe burst at the top of my road 3 week ago. The local authority (Fingal County Council) came out to repair it. Are they getting paid twice? Once by the council and once by IW?? Or is IW a huge white elephant that cost billions to set up while the local authorities still carry out the grunt work.

Water John

No problem with Tom Collins, Godge. Just he is a go to guy for Government when something awkward has to be chaired.

Jack Killian

BoatMad wrote: »

more healy Ray-isms

" they" didnt get anything , you'd payed yourself to have more tax revenue so it could in time generate more public services , facilities , help the disadvantage, provide education and all the myriad of things taxes pay for

" They " didnt get anything, there is no "they ", theres just " us" all of "us"

the reality is taxes increase until you pay for all the services you demand. to do otherwise is what happened in 2008.

"They" = Irish Water.

F34

BoatMad wrote: »

all commercial water rates are now paid to IW.

But are collected by County Council here in Tipp at least

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of all the arguments against water bills, the whole "paying twice" is such a ridiculous one I can't believe anyone advances it with a straight face.

If water is paid for through billing, of course it's not still being paid for through taxation. What, you think that Irish Water staff are getting two paycheques? You think that every repair is carried out twice? You think the electricity bills to run treatment plants are being double-paid?

It's a self-evidently stupid argument.

Ridiculous post. Nice caveat on the "if" though - very Enda-esque.

Water isn't being paid for through billing, and is still getting LPT.

The issue is that in order to sell the scam the TDs lied that those not paying the bills "wanted it for free", when the facts are that we are paying multiple ways.

Water John

F34, thought so. Do the LA's hand it over now to IW? They in turn are then paid by IW for mending leaks etc?

Godge

Water John wrote: »

No problem with Tom Collins, Godge. Just he is a go to guy for Government when something awkward has to be chaired.

Don't know much about him, can you expand? What other awkward things has he chaired?

Water John

Well, he chaired the National Rural Water Monitoring Programme. This was where many of the private group water schemes were failing tests and needed to be upgraded. Politically tricky area.
Nothing wrong with him. But he is appointed by the Gov to chair a body supposed to represent consumers, I think, in this case.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/bill-boycotters-will-be-invited-to-join-irish-water-consumer-forum-31544003.html

He would be very good at nullifying discontent.
As he sort of admits in the article himself, he is trying to close a stable door after the horse has bolted.

Again I point out, I agree with water charges and with a national water authority.

oscarBravo

Jack Killian wrote: »

Ridiculous post.

What a carefully argued rebuttal.

Nice caveat on the "if" though - very Enda-esque.

What?

Water isn't being paid for through billing...

It's not being fully paid for through billing, no. It's being partly paid for by those who pay their bills, and the rest is paid for through general taxation.

I never claimed it was being fully paid for through billing, however, so I'm not sure what the point of that particular straw man argument is.

The issue is that in order to sell the scam the TDs lied that those not paying the bills "wanted it for free", when the facts are that we are paying multiple ways.

If you want to make the case that people have no problem paying for water, you might want to rethink the "can't pay, won't pay" slogan.

gladrags

oscarBravo wrote: »

I never claimed it was being fully paid for through billing, however, so I'm not sure what the point of that particular straw man argument is...

If you want to make the case that people have no problem paying for water, you might want to rethink the "can't pay, won't pay" slogan.

Ironically,it is the simple logical perspectives that count.

The can't pay,won't pay slogan,has slain all the hypocrisies, of the monster that is IW.

Keep it simple,and let the others do the bullsh*****".

oscarBravo

gladrags wrote: »

Ironically,it is the simple logical perspectives that count.

The can't pay,won't pay slogan,has slain all the hypocrisies, of the monster that is IW.

Keep it simple,and let the others do the bullsh*****".

I don't know what any of that means.

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

What a carefully argued rebuttal. What? It's not being fully paid for through billing, no. It's being partly paid for by those who pay their bills, and the rest is paid for through general taxation.

I never claimed it was being fully paid for through billing, however, so I'm not sure what the point of that particular straw man argument is.

You didn't. The government and Irish Water did.

If you want to make the case that people have no problem paying for water, you might want to rethink the "can't pay, won't pay" slogan.

I have no control over other people's slogans, particularly those with whom I have no association.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not being fully paid for through billing, no.

It's being partly paid for by those who pay their bills, and the rest is paid for through general taxation.

And commercial charges.

But in relation to domestic charges, the combination of new costs involved in collecting them, along with the grant, appear to be very close to what they are intended to be raising, thereby seriously negating any claim that the portion which is being collected is going towards water services.

oscarBravo

Jack Killian wrote: »

You didn't. The government and Irish Water did.

They claimed that the cost of water was being fully met through billing? Do you have a source for that?

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

They claimed that the cost of water was being fully met through billing? Do you have a source for that?

One example :

http://merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Speeches/Private_Member%E2%80%99s_Business_speech_on_Domestic_water_charges_and_Irish_Water_-_Minister_Alan_Kelly.html

Of course another inconsistency is that that approximately 20% of the Irish population have already been paying for their water.

What does he think the other 80% were doing ?

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/10/ireland-charge-for-water/

Our current model of water provision, where unlimited quantities of an expensive product are provided at no charge.....

There are loads of others - including government sheep and many pros on this and previous IW threads - who have levelled the accusation of "spongers" at those who refuse to pay IW.

FreudianSlippers

Geuze wrote: »

In a sense, it does.

All LPT and all motor tax is paid into the LGF, Local Govt Fund.

The LGF makes grants to local councils.

So all your LPT and motor tax goes to local councils, yes.

In the past some of the grants were used by councils to run water services.

Now councils get less grants, but the LGF pays a subvention to IW, to help pay for water services.

So when you hear that water is still partly paid for by taxation, this is what is meant - the LGF make a 439m subvention to IW.

The IW charges are not enough to cover the costs of all 1,000+ water plants.


http://www.environ.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/local_government_fund_accounts_2014_-_english.pdf

IIRC the legislation for Motor Tax clearly allocates (ring-fences) 5% of monies collected to provision of water.

I'm not saying necessarily what you're saying is incorrect, just clarifying the issue vis-a-vis Motor Tax.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

Ridiculous post. Nice caveat on the "if" though - very Enda-esque.

Water isn't being paid for through billing, and is still getting LPT.

The issue is that in order to sell the scam the TDs lied that those not paying the bills "wanted it for free", when the facts are that we are paying multiple ways.

I think you're more than slightly confused by this whole thing. So let me break it down:

Say provision of water costs €3bn p.a.

The government needs to (pursuant to the WFD) implement some level of consumption charges, but they don't want to bill individual households for the full amount (i.e. we have either "allowances" or "capped rates").

Say commercial rates bring in €1bn p.a. and, as a result of subsidy via "allowances" or "capped rates", domestic charges bring in €1bn p.a.; that leaves €1bn to be paid to cover the subsidy... someone has to pay for that! That someone is the government through taxation.

They need to get to €3bn somehow - subsidisation costs money - and that money has to come from somewhere.

FreudianSlippers

weldoninhio wrote: »

A pipe burst at the top of my road 3 week ago. The local authority (Fingal County Council) came out to repair it. Are they getting paid twice? Once by the council and once by IW?? Or is IW a huge white elephant that cost billions to set up while the local authorities still carry out the grunt work.

What are you talking about? Are who getting paid twice, the individual workers that come out to your road?

If IW is paying the local authority to carry out repair works in a specific area, IW are paying the local authority. The local authority then uses the money they collected from LPT for other things.

FreudianSlippers

Going Forward wrote: »

And commercial charges.

But in relation to domestic charges, the combination of new costs involved in collecting them, along with the grant, appear to be very close to what they are intended to be raising, thereby seriously negating any claim that the portion which is being collected is going towards water services.

1) I believe it was always anticipated savings (or more accurately reinvestment) would occur down the line;
2) I don't believe anyone anticipated the extreme abreaction to the billing which has increased costs for collection.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

One example :

http://merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Speeches/Private_Member%E2%80%99s_Business_speech_on_Domestic_water_charges_and_Irish_Water_-_Minister_Alan_Kelly.html



What does he think the other 80% were doing ?

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/10/ireland-charge-for-water/




There are loads of others - including government sheep and many pros on this and previous IW threads - who have levelled the accusation of "spongers" at those who refuse to pay IW.

Where does that say that the cost of water was/is being fully met through billing? Certainly not in the quote that you picked out randomly.

PS: it would appear to me that he is certainly talking about 20% of people paying for water through GWS or wells, not Irish Water.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think you're more than slightly confused by this whole thing. So let me break it down:

Say provision of water costs €3bn p.a.

The government needs to (pursuant to the WFD) implement some level of consumption charges, but they don't want to bill individual households for the full amount (i.e. we have either "allowances" or "capped rates").

Say commercial rates bring in €1bn p.a. and, as a result of subsidy via "allowances" or "capped rates", domestic charges bring in €1bn p.a.; that leaves €1bn to be paid to cover the subsidy... someone has to pay for that! That someone is the government through taxation.

They need to get to €3bn somehow - subsidisation costs money - and that money has to come from somewhere.

I'm not the one who's confused - take it up with the ignorant TDs & ministers that spouted those lies.

As for the income from commercial rates - do you have a link for that ?

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Where does that say that the cost of water was/is being fully met through billing? Certainly not in the quote that you picked out randomly.

PS: it would appear to me that he is certainly talking about 20% of people paying for water through GWS or wells, not Irish Water.

I know well that he is talking about us; the question was "what does he reckon the other 80% are doing?".

If they'd not come out with "ye can't expect it for free" and if they hadn't misappropriated the "80% of LPT is for local services" then the issue wouldn't have arisen.

Water John

I was surprised it took so long for the protest to bubble up, sorry couldn't resist the pun.
EK was talking about average pay per household. I think that was €248.
What was clear from IW own surveying that actually only about 20% were €50 either side of that. So you had a very wide spread. Average was totally disingenious Many very frugal people were paying less, but 20% were going to pay over €500. With that grouping going to average €720.
Even if the left hadn't latched onto the issue this 20% were going to kick up holy war. You would want to be an idiot not to see it coming.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

I'm not the one who's confused - take it up with the ignorant TDs & ministers that spouted those lies.

I'm sorry, but you quite clearly are very confused. No amount of deflection is going to fix that.

As for the income from commercial rates - do you have a link for that ?

Clearly hypothetical example, but I believe commercial rates are something not too far off that. I'm sure the CER has this information

Jack Killian wrote: »

I know well that he is talking about us; the question was "what does he reckon the other 80% are doing?".

If they'd not come out with "ye can't expect it for free" and if they hadn't misappropriated the "80% of LPT is for local services" then the issue wouldn't have arisen.

No, I'm sorry. You said he government and Irish Water claimed that cost of water was/is being fully met through billing - you were asked to support that claim.

Discussions about wells or GWS are irrelevant to this claim.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you quite clearly are very confused. No amount of deflection is going to fix that.

It seems that you are the one who refuses to acknowledge facts and are deflecting from the fact that the government were at fault.

The above post of yours is pretty obnoxious in contradicting me and implying that I am "quite clearly" confused - are you always that obnoxious and dismissive when trying to deflect blame ?

Clearly hypothetical example, but I believe commercial rates are something not too far off that. I'm sure the CER has this information

So no facts to back up your claim then ? Grand so.

Here's one that might put the "pay for what you use" into perspective; not only are they using it, but they're profiting from it:

http://www.right2water.ie/sites/default/files/media/FOI-Requests_0.pdf

No, I'm sorry. You said he government and Irish Water claimed that cost of water was/is being fully met through billing - you were asked to support that claim.

It's been said often enough in the media, and all the pros on here labelled objectors as "spongers"; are you admitting that they are NOT actually "spongers", and that there is no justification for calling them/us that ?

Discussions about wells or GWS are irrelevant to this claim.

The discussion said that those 20% are paying for their water, thereby implying that the others aren't.

oscarBravo

Forgive the nested quotes, but someone's confused here:

Jack Killian wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jack Killian wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

I never claimed it was being fully paid for through billing...

You didn't. The government and Irish Water did.

They claimed that the cost of water was being fully met through billing? Do you have a source for that?

One example :

http://merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Speeches/Private_Member%E2%80%99s_Business_speech_on_Domestic_water_charges_and_Irish_Water_-_Minister_Alan_Kelly.html

Of course another inconsistency is that that approximately 20% of the Irish population have already been paying for their water.

What does he think the other 80% were doing ?

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/10/ireland-charge-for-water/

Our current model of water provision, where unlimited quantities of an expensive product are provided at no charge.....

There are loads of others - including government sheep and many pros on this and previous IW threads - who have levelled the accusation of "spongers" at those who refuse to pay IW.

So you claimed that the government have stated that the cost of water is being fully met through billing. You haven't backed up that claim.

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

Forgive the nested quotes, but someone's confused here:



So you claimed that the government have stated that the cost of water is being fully met through billing. You haven't backed up that claim.

http://www.thejournal.ie/eric-byrne-gerry-adams-sponger-2011159-Mar2015/

Sponger: "makes no effort to pay for anything themselves"

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/sponger

No "already pays part" there.

trixychic

I have only read the first 2 pages and the last 2 pages...

I was paying my first few bills but the last 2 bills that arrived have not been paid and they certainly won't be now.

I'm not against water charges but the way it was done in this country is a joke and ridiculous. While the future of the charges are uncertain the money will be staying with me!!!

oscarBravo

Jack Killian wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/eric-byrne-gerry-adams-sponger-2011159-Mar2015/

Sponger: "makes no effort to pay for anything themselves"

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/sponger

No "already pays part" there.

You keep deflecting a simple question with answers to something that, as far as I can see, nobody has asked.

Third time: you've claimed that the government has said that the cost of supplying water is fully met through billing. Are you going to back up this claim, admit you were wrong, or deflect the question yet again?

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

You keep deflecting a simple question with answers to something that, as far as I can see, nobody has asked.

Confused now, since basic English doesn't seem to be getting through to you.

Third time: you've claimed that the government has said that the cost of supplying water is fully met through billing. Are you going to back up this claim, admit you were wrong, or deflect the question yet again?

See the link. Labour TD. One of many who slandered those not paying IW.

oscarBravo

Jack Killian wrote: »

Confused now, since basic English doesn't seem to be getting through to you.

See the link. Labour TD. One of many who slandered those not paying IW.

I'm not talking about spongers. I'm not talking about people who do or don't pay. I'm not talking about any of the things you seem to keep trying to deflect the question with.

Fourth time asking, now: you've claimed that the government has said that the cost of supplying water is fully met through billing. Can you back up this claim? Ideally without trying to change the subject yet again?

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not talking about spongers. I'm not talking about people who do or don't pay. I'm not talking about any of the things you seem to keep trying to deflect the question with.

Fourth time asking, now: you've claimed that the government has said that the cost of supplying water is fully met through billing. Can you back up this claim? Ideally without trying to change the subject yet again?

Government TDs referred to people as spongers

Jesus Christ can you not read English, or are you being deliberately obnoxious ?

How can someone be referred to as a "sponger" for not paying part of the cost of their water ?

listermint

oscarBravo wrote: »

Forgive the nested quotes, but someone's confused here:



So you claimed that the government have stated that the cost of water is being fully met through billing. You haven't backed up that claim.

No but theyre regulator signalled a full opening for price increases.

You and the rest of the crew in here defending this mess of a company know full well the averg family will have bills in the region of 700 to 1000euro for water. Thats the end goal here sugaring it up with words like civic duty and all that fluffy nonsense the OP harped on about won't hide that .

Moral of the story here is sort out your house first before you come asking me for more bloody money and yes I mean more between lpt and paye all these local services we were told we were covering we aren't getting.


Workers pockets are not endless.


Get off the stage.

Full Marx

Im gonna have a good laugh at the suckers who paid their water charges (those who berated or criticised those who didnt) who wont see a penny of it back. You should have hung on until after the election to see what the lay of the land was.

oscarBravo

Jack Killian wrote: »

Government TDs referred to people as spongers

Jesus Christ can you not read English, or are you being deliberately obnoxious ?

How can someone be referred to as a "sponger" for not paying part of the cost of their water ?

I give up. I haven't the faintest idea what you think the question I asked you four times means, but clearly we're speaking different dialects of English.

listermint wrote: »

You and the rest of the crew in here defending this mess of a company know full well the averg family will have bills in the region of 700 to 1000euro for water.

Do you say that bills will be that much because you think (a) that's what it costs to provide water to the average family, or (b) it costs less than that, but the bills will be artificially inflated?

If (a), why do you think the average family shouldn't have to pay what it costs to provide them with water?

If (b), why?

I hope you're better at providing actual answers to simple questions than the other chap.